Corruption In Art Metal

This case involves corruption, particularly a bribery scheme. Art Metal U.S.A. paid bribes to GSA government inspectors to influence them to accept the vendor’s substandard furniture products in lieu of providing merchandise that actually met government specifications. The scheme involved in this case is different than the typical kickback scheme, but there are several ways this particular type of scheme can be prevented and detected in the future. First of all, both of the organizations involved in this case should have more effective whistle-blowing procedures in place for their staff to report corruption, as it seems there were witnesses of suspicious activity that did not come forward until the congressional investigation took place. Also, tips and complaints received should be given more serious consideration and there should be a better system in place to actually follow up on any tips and complaints (Arora, 2011). According to the case, when federal employees complained to the GSA for years about the shoddiness of the furniture and equipment they received, their concerns were ignored or rebuffed and the GSA had done little to investigate the furniture contractor, Art Metal U.S.A. This lack of follow-up allowed the problem to continue for as long as it did without detection. Also, when investigations actually were held, they should have been much more thorough, as the case stated that Art Metal had been the subject of two GSA-appointed investigations that uncovered nothing (Wells, 2011).

Additionally, both of these organizations need to implement and publicize an ethics policy that clearly explains what improper behavior is and explicitly prohibits employees from soliciting or accepting any gift or favor from a cus...

... middle of paper ...

...ented, showing who initiated the purchase, who approved it, who received the materials, and so on (Wells, 2011). In this case, it was the inspectors who accepted bribes, so those responsible for inspecting purchased merchandise should be required to sign off on all equipment that they have inspected and approved so that those specific individuals will be held personally accountable if they approve substandard equipment. It may also be helpful if more than one employee is responsible for inspecting each piece of equipment. This will serve to provide a second opinion on its quality and to provide some oversight in order to make sure that only quality merchandise is being approved. If the organizations involved in this case implement all of the aforementioned recommendations, they should be more effective at preventing bribery schemes from occurring in the future.